Cargando…

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is now a commonly performed procedure in most of renal transplantation centers. However, the suitability of laparoscopy for donors with abnormal venous anatomy is still a subject of debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2007 and August 2014, 243 lap...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb, Javali, Tarun Dilip, Nagaraj, Harohalli K., Prakash Babu, S. M. L., Nayak, Arvind
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557443/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28379667
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0309
_version_ 1783257205013741568
author Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb
Javali, Tarun Dilip
Nagaraj, Harohalli K.
Prakash Babu, S. M. L.
Nayak, Arvind
author_facet Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb
Javali, Tarun Dilip
Nagaraj, Harohalli K.
Prakash Babu, S. M. L.
Nayak, Arvind
author_sort Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is now a commonly performed procedure in most of renal transplantation centers. However, the suitability of laparoscopy for donors with abnormal venous anatomy is still a subject of debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2007 and August 2014, 243 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed in our institution. All donors were evaluated with preoperative three-dimensional spiral computed tomography (CT) angiography Thirteen (5.35%) donors had a left renal vein anomaly. A retrospective analysis was performed to collect donor and recipient demographics and perioperative data. RESULTS: Four donors had a type I retroaortic vein, seven had type II retroaortic vein and a circumaortic vein was seen in three donors. The mean operative time was 114±11 minutes and mean warm ischemia time was 202±12 seconds. The mean blood loss was 52.7±18.4mL and no donor required blood transfusion. Mean recipient creatinine at the time of discharge was 1.15±0.18mg/dL, and creatinine at six months and one year follow-up was 1.12±0.13mg/dL and 1.2±0.14mg/dL, respectively. There were no significant differences in operative time, blood loss, warm ischemia time, donor hospital stay or recipient creatinine at 6 months follow-up, following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in patients with or without left renal vein anomalies. CONCLUSION: Preoperative delineation of venous anatomy using CT angiography is as important as arterial anatomy. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe and feasible in patients with retroaortic or circumaortic renal vein with good recipient outcome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5557443
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55574432017-08-30 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb Javali, Tarun Dilip Nagaraj, Harohalli K. Prakash Babu, S. M. L. Nayak, Arvind Int Braz J Urol Original Article OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is now a commonly performed procedure in most of renal transplantation centers. However, the suitability of laparoscopy for donors with abnormal venous anatomy is still a subject of debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2007 and August 2014, 243 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed in our institution. All donors were evaluated with preoperative three-dimensional spiral computed tomography (CT) angiography Thirteen (5.35%) donors had a left renal vein anomaly. A retrospective analysis was performed to collect donor and recipient demographics and perioperative data. RESULTS: Four donors had a type I retroaortic vein, seven had type II retroaortic vein and a circumaortic vein was seen in three donors. The mean operative time was 114±11 minutes and mean warm ischemia time was 202±12 seconds. The mean blood loss was 52.7±18.4mL and no donor required blood transfusion. Mean recipient creatinine at the time of discharge was 1.15±0.18mg/dL, and creatinine at six months and one year follow-up was 1.12±0.13mg/dL and 1.2±0.14mg/dL, respectively. There were no significant differences in operative time, blood loss, warm ischemia time, donor hospital stay or recipient creatinine at 6 months follow-up, following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in patients with or without left renal vein anomalies. CONCLUSION: Preoperative delineation of venous anatomy using CT angiography is as important as arterial anatomy. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe and feasible in patients with retroaortic or circumaortic renal vein with good recipient outcome. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5557443/ /pubmed/28379667 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0309 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Patil, Avinash Bapusaheb
Javali, Tarun Dilip
Nagaraj, Harohalli K.
Prakash Babu, S. M. L.
Nayak, Arvind
Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications
title Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications
title_full Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications
title_fullStr Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications
title_short Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications
title_sort laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in unusual venous anatomy – donor and recepient implications
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557443/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28379667
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0309
work_keys_str_mv AT patilavinashbapusaheb laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications
AT javalitarundilip laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications
AT nagarajharohallik laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications
AT prakashbabusml laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications
AT nayakarvind laparoscopicdonornephrectomyinunusualvenousanatomydonorandrecepientimplications